I totally agree with you mate. And it's always going to be a precarious relationship whenever you get TWO companies however much you think they are on the same page , they are always going to have their own agendas and interests for their own shareholders. And that's why JV's are so hard and why a lot of business partnerships under partnership legal structures fail.
One could argue that Piedmont could sell down its stake in Sayona Parent ......and who knows maybe it has done so already to a small degree ...because where is the substantial notice that stated it move from 19.9% to 18.6% apart from seeing it in the rights prospectus.....
Being a substantial holder of this magnitude comes responsibilities and ASX and Corporations Laws mandatory disclosures. So where is the one which stated that their holding reduced ? ...
even if it was on account of ' dilution ' , it would still be required. Have I missed something here ?
And I guess why would I not be surprised about this oversight.......
They seem to be very good in their own right regarding ' oversights ' when it comes to the alleged trading in their securities .....whether its here in Australia or overseas on the Nasdaq. And this is where it comes down to BOTH trust and competency. And so you can bang on all day long about how wonderful you think he or any of his executives are , but the proof is sometimes in how you manage the simplest of matters and requirements. Even yesterday's comments regarding how a poster was boasting on how wonderful their Hydroxide man was . But at the end of the day one has to wonder why a person of that calibre would be allowed to leave a US $26 Billion Dollar company to take up a position in an untried and untested $1.4 Billion Dollar effective ' wannabe ' and like any of the other aspiring but yet to be producing Lithium entities. Albemarle has significant facilities in the US as well , so it couldn't be for that reasons.
So sometimes , somethings are not always what you think and / or necessarily want to think. And I have no problems hanging this poster who said these things out to dry on the Sayona forums, as I am not the one who keeps almost incessantly bringing these targeted negative comments up against Sayona , and I'm most certainly not doing the same thing on their forum. And so this is where it comes to the trust in the relationship.
Anyway , and getting back to my point regarding the always ' precarious ' relationships no matter who you alleged partner is , if Piedmont did decide to crystalize its substantial profits position in Sayona , they would still have their 25% holding in Sayona Quebec and their binding offtake agreement , but they would no longer have the right to remain or hold a position on Sayona's BOD and be privy to ALL their commercial undertakings and strategies I would think ....because at the end of the day ,they are effectively Competitors.
So it's interesting to see just how ' Deep ' this so called corporate friendship and alliance actually is or how far it extends . Whatever the case , this poster seems to have the attitude that it doesn't extend all that far. Else why would he /she be here all the time telling us Sayona shareholders how it is.
Interesting as well as to how this poster seems alleges to have the answers about sensitive ' commercial in confidence ' information ahead of any ASX relevant relating disclosures . But again , why am I not surprised here. After all its Piedmont we are talking about right ? Appropriate disclosures , if you go by what's happening with the US class action lawsuit and which is public information don't appear to be one of their corporate and administrative strengths.
So you can have all the corporate ' talent ' you like in terms of technical and engineering expertise , but if you don't have the competencies commercially and legally , you are going to find yourself in a whole different world of pain in my opinion. Rest assured though, I'll be watching very very closely for the first thing they do wrong.
(20min delay)